Chrisitans I have a placenta question - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 36 Old 09-24-2011, 09:09 PM
 
Dandelionkid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,674
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

We are not under the law anymore but under grace.

 

 "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

 

Eating placenta doesn`t seem like it would be contrary to these greatest commandments. I am going to eat mine guilt-free :)

Dandelionkid is offline  
#32 of 36 Old 09-25-2011, 05:51 PM
 
mamabadger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

What's this "cannibalism is forbidden" thing? I can't think of it being mentioned at all in the Bible (beyond that Deuteronomy reference, where it's mentioned in the context of murder plus cannibalism). As a Christian I'd have no MORAL problem even with eating the flesh of another person (a la the plane crash in the Andes). A very strong squeamishness/health problem with it, sure; I'm not sure I could bring myself to do it. But "God wouldn't want me to eat human flesh" just would not register as an objection. It's not forbidden. It's not mentioned. And I'm Protestant, so the objections of early Christians to the practice don't hold weight in and of themselves (although if their arguments were sound, the arguments would).

 


Your arguments put into focus the two approaches the OP (or others) could take in deciding the matter.

 

From a strict Scripture-only perspective, you are right, cannibalism is apparently permitted since it is not specifically proscribed in the New Testament canon.

(For a non-Scripture-only person, this is an example of why Scripture-only doesn't work, but I am looking at things from a different direction, I suppose.)

 

My take would be that since early Christians from the first generation onward, including those taught by the Apostles, maintained and openly preached that cannibalism was forbidden within Christianity, only the most compelling and overwhelming evidence could begin to refute that belief. It would require the same kind of evidence as, for example, arguing that Christians could marry their own siblings because brother-sister incest was not specifically forbidden in the New Testament; the force of longstanding tradition and Church-wide understanding would outweigh almost anything on the other side. 

 

mamabadger is offline  
#33 of 36 Old 09-25-2011, 07:51 PM
 
katelove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,831
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by mamabadger View Post

 


Your arguments put into focus the two approaches the OP (or others) could take in deciding the matter.

 

From a strict Scripture-only perspective, you are right, cannibalism is apparently permitted since it is not specifically proscribed in the New Testament canon.

(For a non-Scripture-only person, this is an example of why Scripture-only doesn't work, but I am looking at things from a different direction, I suppose.)

 

My take would be that since early Christians from the first generation onward, including those taught by the Apostles, maintained and openly preached that cannibalism was forbidden within Christianity, only the most compelling and overwhelming evidence could begin to refute that belief. It would require the same kind of evidence as, for example, arguing that Christians could marry their own siblings because brother-sister incest was not specifically forbidden in the New Testament; the force of longstanding tradition and Church-wide understanding would outweigh almost anything on the other side. 

 


I think this is a good point. It is really tricky (although interesting) to discuss things on this forum because you don't always know what perspective the other person is coming from.

 

I am scripture first person. I mentioned this to my parents and they told me about the recent bible study program they'd just participated in on guidance. It had three heading I guess - scripture, good judgment and trivial. Your first point-of-call is the Bible. If it doesn't say one way or the other then the next question is, is this good judgement? To use your example, I would say that a brother/sister marriage would be poor judgement because of the implications for children of the union. 

 

I personally think that the placenta question could be either judgment or trivia. One could argue that it showed a good use of the available resources to prevent or treat PPD anaemia or one could argue that it really didn't matter either way and that God didn't mind whether you ate your placenta or took a course of commercial iron tablets.

 

I didn't really understand what you meant by this being an example of why scripture only doesn't work but only expand if you feel like it smile.gif

 


Mother of two spectacular girls, born mid-2010 and late 2012  mdcblog5.gif

katelove is online now  
#34 of 36 Old 09-26-2011, 02:05 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

 

Quote:

From a strict Scripture-only perspective, you are right, cannibalism is apparently permitted since it is not specifically proscribed in the New Testament canon.

(For a non-Scripture-only person, this is an example of why Scripture-only doesn't work, but I am looking at things from a different direction, I suppose.)

I'm not "Scripture-only" - as far as I know, that position doesn't exist. I'm sola Scriptura, which is not at all the same thing.

 

It's not as simple as "whatever is not specifically proscribed is permitted" - putting bombs in mailboxes isn't specifically proscribed either. The point is, there are Scriptural principles that can be used to determine that putting bombs in mailboxes is not something God would approve of - verses about not committing murder, for instance. (I suppose you could argue for exceptions along the assassinating-Hitler line, but again, Scriptural principles would come into play there.)

 

There are, to my knowledge, no Scriptural principles that would prohibit cannibalism. The Bible doesn't require us to treat our dead in a particular way - it's not important, because God can raise the dead regardless of the condition of their bodies. Dietary laws went out with the New Covenant (with the possible exception of the "eating blood" thing the OP mentioned, but I've covered that). One could argue that the Golden Rule would apply for casual cannibalism - most of us wouldn't want our dead relatives eaten, so we shouldn't eat other people's relatives - but in a life-or-death situation, I'm not sure that applies (any more than it'd be wrong to take a dead hiker's thermal blanket on Everest, even though most people wouldn't want their dead despoiled... you know?). And in the case of placentaphagy, it doesn't really apply anyway.

 

So how does sola Scriptura "not work" in this scenario? Unless you're starting from the perspective that cannibalism is absolutely wrong, and therefore SS must be flawed in that it cannot reach that conclusion. But that's contentious: why would you think cannibalism was wrong? The early Christians, taught by the Apostles, taught a lot of weird stuff; the question is, were their arguments sound? So what were they? Were they based on moral principles, and if so, whence derived? Or a squeamishness-based "Ew, no, we don't do that" response to the Roman contention that the Lord's Supper was cannibalism?

 

Also, "incest is forbidden for Chrristians" can be derived from the Bible. It comes under "Follow the laws of your country as long as they do not conflict with the laws of God".


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#35 of 36 Old 03-29-2012, 05:23 PM
 
Nazsmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In the vine
Posts: 2,639
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)

sosurreal09- Did you ever come to a decision? I was talking about this today and remembered this thead...

Nazsmum is online now  
#36 of 36 Old 04-18-2012, 10:03 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,905
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)

I just came across this, and I wanted to throw in my opinion along with the rest orngtongue.gif

 

I ate a piece of my placenta right after DD's birth, blended up in a fruit smoothie. For a few weeks afterward, I would do the same thing if I ever felt moody. Guess what? No PPD! I cannot be sure if this was because of the placenta, or the fact that I was in a Much better frame of mind than when my son was a baby. Did the placenta help? I like to think so.

 

Now, I'll tell you my personal opinion of the placenta. It is similar to a chicken's egg yolk. The yolk is NOT the chick, as most people believe; it is the nourishment FOR the chick. The chick grows on the outside of the yolk, and yes, chicks have bellybuttons! The yolk nourishes the chick, and right before hatching, the yolk is absorbed into the chick, to provide a few days of nourishment after the hatch.

 

The placenta is not part of the baby--it nourishes the baby (much like the egg yolk). If you eat the placenta, as many animals do, you are consuming a substance that will ultimately show up in your milk, which will nourish the baby. So, the placenta nourishes the baby while in the womb, and then once again when you eat it and it appears in the milk. (This is oversimplifying, I know, but that's how I like to think of it!) Think about it--you are what you eat, and  your milk is too, so in a round about way, whatever you eat helps to make milk! 

 

In my opinion, it should be alright to consume the placenta, because it was meant to nourish the baby, both in and out of the womb.

 

Also, I pray that you will have a wonderful labor and delivery, and that you and the baby will be happy and healthy!stillheart.gif

 


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off